A Vote For Obama; Updated Editor’s Note

I was stunned to check my last post and find a comment about Romney’s pro-life beliefs.  The commenter said they were not voting for Mitt Romney because of his stated beliefs on the issue of abortion.  What’s even more incredible is that five people clicked "like" under the comment.

I am here to tell you exactly what I think Governor Palin would say: a vote withheld from Romney is a vote for Barack Obama.

You’ll have to fast-forward to about the 6:50 mark in that video to hear her thoughts on it.  She says in that interview – and has said before – that while Romney may not be what we as Tea Party Conservatives believe is the best candidate, right now he is THE candidate standing against the horribly failed policies of Barack Obama.  Like it or not he was the Republican pick.  Yes, he’s been rather sophomoric when talking about Governor Palin.  His entourage hasn’t been the most gentlemanly when her name has come up.  Four more years of Obama frighten me almost beyond words, and the fact that so many are so willing to see only one issue when deciding who they will vote for (or even that they won’t vote at all) is shortsighted at best.  I would personally call it cowardice.

For me, this all goes back to Rick Santorum’s campaign and some of the ridiculous things he has said over time.  Dan Savage was so extreme in his anti-Santorum campaign that I feel nauseous just thinking about it, but Santorum himself does have a short fuse and is very judgmental.  He’s also what we call a "social conservative" – the type of person who believes that social issues are at the heart of the fight for America’s soul.  They’re not willing to take the high road and say "I’m not willing to judge".  You’d have a tough time finding one who counts homosexuals among their friends.  Social conservatives are the type of hard-right-wingers that give all conservatives a bad name.  Santorum said more than once that he didn’t believe we had a Constitutional right to privacy, and he toyed dangerously with "common good" ideals that we tend to get so angry with liberals over.  Where we as the Tea Party will bristle at the notion that the government has a right to grope us at airports and police should be allowed to enter our homes without consent or a warrant, social conservatives dismiss such notions as borderline anarchy.

Our founders did not have an easy time deciding what the Constitution and the Articles of Amendment would say.  They debated for months in sweltering conditions about what rights should be afforded individuals in this new country.  Men from all walks of life hammered each other for quite some time before they came up with the document that we today hold up as the basis of everything that we believe.  Parts of that document are often ignored, sometimes even twisted into something entirely different.

The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The "establishment" clause is so often quoted these days that we forget the whole statement and the whole meaning.  Congress is barred by the First Amendment from establishing a state religion – at the same time, Congress cannot pass any law that is based solely on one religion’s belief.  While I as a pro-lifer have scientific reasons for being against abortion, the overwhelming majority of other pro-lifers I know base their belief on their religion.  Congress cannot pass a law just because your interpretation of "god" says so; if they did, they would have to recognize laws by every other religion represented in America, including Islam.  I don’t think any of us really want Sharia enclaves in Minneapolis and Detroit.  The flip side of that statement bars the government from refusing to allow religious displays on public land – something that atheists conveniently forget.

The Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Nowhere in that phrase does it say anything about a militia being necessary for this law to apply.  We the people have the right to defend ourselves – period.  The government is not allowed to infringe upon that right, but they have continually tried.  If you notice, the most dangerous cities in America are all led by liberals and all have very restrictive gun laws, most often banning handguns in public.  Self defense is a base, primal trait that all living creatures obey.  My front door is locked for YOUR protection, not mine – and the government has no right to tell me that I can’t defend myself and my home.

The Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This is the part that Santorum and his supporters don’t get.  Nobody is ever allowed to simply kick in your front door just because they have a hunch that you may have done something they don’t like.  If you know your neighbor is gay, they are allowed by the First Amendment to be gay and this amendment protects them from government intrusion.  Liberals will scream bloody murder if this right is infringed upon and someone is convicted of a crime they didn’t commit, but they’ll give the TSA autonomy and say that it’s for our protection.  The Fourth Amendment is frequently forgotten when it’s convenient.

The Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is the one rule that our government has ignored completely for over a century.  Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the right to establish a department of education, or energy, agriculture, and health and human services? We have the bureaus of economic analysis, industry and security, international labor affairs, land management, reclamation, and multiple bureaus for different statistics.  Social Security was supposed to be voluntary – now we have separate taxes for that and medicare and BOTH are in dire straits.  Our government has taken powers that it never had the right to take, and we have slept through everything.  Much of what the federal government does now should be left to the states to lead.  Even the states have taken too much power and ignored rights given by the Constitution.

Both sides have forgotten on more than one occasion that we all have certain inalienable rights.  The current President has flagrantly ignored our rights in order to cram his Marxist beliefs down our throats.  Hard-right social conservatives saw the anger over his anti-Constitutional behavior as an opportunity to swing the pendulum in the other direction.  That is the other extreme, and extremes are what we should be avoiding.

If you refuse to vote for Mitt Romney because of one social issue that you absolutely refuse to let go of, be it abortion, contraceptives or gay rights, you are selling your entire country short.  We cannot afford another four years of Obama.  Social issues will be the least of our worries if we don’t learn to stand together.

Update by Doug: Bill Whittle takes on the "lesser of two evils" nature of Mitt Romney’s candidacy in the video below and he makes some of the same points Mel did above. It’s worth a watch.


Update by Stacy, Editor’s Note: Please know that the views expressed by Mel in this post do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editors or the site as a whole. Each C4P contributor is free to express their own individual opinion in their respective posts. As stated on our "About" page:

The views expressed here are those of the individual C4P contributors. Readers should not assume that Sarah Palin, SarahPAC, or the C4P contributors as a whole share the views expressed by any individual contributor.

(17 Posts)